Why Bush's H-Car is Just Hot Air

The New Republic ^ | February 18, 2003 | Greg Easterbrook

[seams2me]

Well thought and articulate replies. I think I like you.

[TBall]

I wish that the auto makers would produce more cars that run on natural gas.

[whattajoke]

also, for what it's worth, Easterbrook also favors going to war:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2078766/

(scroll through the morons)

[rwfromkansas]

This is posted by Murrymom....and from the leftist commie New Republic.

Interesting.....liberal environmentalists are attacking Bush for trying to do something good. He could forbid the use of gas in cars tomorrow and the environmentalists would go crazy because Bush is Republican.

[MadIvan]

Read the following: The Independent, A Weekly Magazine - 22 October 1903.

In there the distinguished professor of mathematics and astronomy Simon Newcomb argued that powered flight as we know it was physically impossible. He had hitherto had an illustrious career. Now he's something of a joke for having said this.

The man you cite is just as much a joke, and so are you. Take a massive dose of shut the hell up you know-nothing liberal.

Ivan

[Tempest]

Gee I remember when people thought that automobiles were a pipe dream, or flight, or space crafts that could take us out of the atmosphere....

[ECM]

Did you even read what I wrote?

Christ, some of you are sorely lacking in the reading comprehension dept.

I said within a minimum of 50 years, not FOREVER.

Ridiculous.

[Ditto]

Thanks

[Chemist_Geek]

This short service life (as compared to an internal combustion engine) makes them rather expensive.

In 1903, how often did automobiles break down, hmm?

[from occupied ga]

» t»?3, how often did automobiles break down, hmm?

In 1903 automobiles were chosen freely by those who could afford them as being vastly superior to the horse. You know, it's funny I don't see any big line forming to buy fuel cell vehicles. And electric vehicles - well we all know how they took the marketplace by storm. (not) You'll have to do better than that.

I assume from your handle that you are familiar with the first and second laws hmmm? Then you are fully aware that H2 formed from fossil fuel is just adds additional inefficientcy to the burning of the fuel. You'd get more useful energy out burning it directly wouldn't you?. And as far as electrolysis goes, this is the most expensive H2 around. (I misspeak - H2 in space is much more expensive. Electrolytic H2 is the most expensive H2 on the planet)

[Ditto]

In 1937, Westinghouse built the first commercially owned atom smasher -- a 65 foot tall electro-static generator. After 3 years of operation and a great deal of success in splitting atoms and studying sub-atomic particles, Dr. E. U. Condon, Associate Director of Westinghouse's Research Laboratory had this to say about the prospects for practicable commercial applications from their basic atomic research.

It probably won't do us any good if we are looking to atomic study with the hope that someday we shall be able to harness the atom's energy to a power plant. We don't expect to put the atom to work in any such way, but we do know that to control nature, we must understand her and the answers to our questions lie inside the atom."

Two years later, the first controlled fission chain reactions took place at the University of Chicago. Five years later, the first nuclear blast took place in the New Mexico desert. Fourteen years later, the USS Nautilus, the first atomic submarine went to sea, and 17 years after Dr. Condon made his prediction, the first commercial nuclear power station went into operation at Shippingport PA., not fifty miles from Dr. Condon's research lab. The reactors for both the Nautilus and the Shippingport power station were designed and built by Westinghouse.

[radioman]

I was not belittling you - I was simply pointing out that H2 as a motor fuel is pure bs on the same level as ethanol as a motor fuel. Sorry if you don't want to accept it, but that's your problem.

Now we're having fun!
I considered your prior statements belittling to others who have made the breakthroughs that have given us our prosperity, not to me personally.

I may be overreacting just a little, but I was emailed several angry responses from academic types the last time we had an H2 debate on this forum. But, I did recieve one email from an interesting guy who I happily gave links to, so I guess it's worth it.

H2 generation on demand is simple and cost effective. This has been proven numerous times.

BMW tested the Cornish hydrogen generator, US Patent 4,702,894.

This device consists of a water tank, a rotating aluminum drum inside the tank with aluminum wire fed onto the drum. An electrical arc is created between the wire and drum powered from dual auto ignition coils with a capacitor between them to give 18KV at 1 amp. The apparatus is powered from the car's battery.

Sound like BS?

Here's a quote from BMW:
"The unit as present assembled in a 2000cc car produced sufficient gas to power the engine continuously. The aluminum consumption averaged out at 180 cm per minute over a 70 minute test run."
Bayerische Motoren Werke
Service Division
I.V. Henseler
V. Krause

The aluminum consumption as tested is $1.00 per 400 miles. The cost of aluminum wire has tripled since this test, but this is still cheaper than gasoline.

BMW decided to develop a hydrogen storage system for their cars because of the adverse politics of hydrogen on demand.

This system has maintenance problems, (aluminum oxide buildup in the tank) but nothing that can't be solved with engineering.

Now, could you explain to me how this violates the 2nd, or any other, law of thermodynamics?

I'll bet you even think there's a law against a free energy device too! Haha...Peace and Prosperity

[from occupied ga]

H2 debate on this forum

Here part of the difference. There is no real point in "debating" the "merits" of H2 as a motor fuel any more than there is "merit" in debating whether or not 1 + 1 = 3. You can debate all you want, but the result is not changed by the debate. It is not a matter of opinion. It is foreordained by the laws of physics.

The problem is that a lot of people just don't understand that you can't violate the laws of physics. Hold an egg over your head. Do you have to have a debate to figure out what will happen if you drop it? No of course not. You are familiar with the law of gravity. H2 as a motor fuel is exactly the same thing except the rules are a little less obvious.

H2 generation on demand is simple and cost effective. This has been proven numerous times

This statement is false. H2 generation IS simple. You can generate H2 from water by adding Sodium hydroxide solution to aluminum shavings. What could be simpler? You can generate hydrogen by electrolysis of water It is not cost effective. The only way it could be cost effective is if the egg dropped up rather than down, and this isn't going to happen.

As far as your internet reference to the perpetual motion machine goes there are two and only two possibilities. I won't explain how it violated the laws of thermodynamics because it cannot violate either the first or second laws of thermodynamics. 1+1 does not = 3 and can never = 3. The two possibilities are:

1. The device is a fraud and the claims are fraudulent
2. The device works, but gets it's energy from some source such as the battery in the car and a combination of burning aluminum. If we assume that it gets it's energy from burning aluminum using the O2 in water, producing Al2O3 from the O in water and releasing the H as gas, then it is NOT cost effective. There is a lot of energy to be had burning aluminum, but this energy must overcome the H-O bonds in water and there are pretty strong. Because it is a very energy intensive process to produce aluminum (costs a lot of fossil fuel as electric generation - more than you get back out when you burn the Al) it is a very inefficient process to produce energy by burning aluminum. In short if the device works at all, it produces very expensive H2 - much more expensive per calorie than simply burning fossil fuel.

Yes there is a law against free energy devices (perpetual motion machines) It is the first law of thermodynamics and it goes something like "You can't get something from nothing." or "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed."

(1 + 1 will never ever = 3 no matter how much you think it should)

[radioman]

LMAO!!!
You decide what is and what is not worth debating?
Prpetual motion machine? How is this device, or any of the others, a perpetual motion machine? Science called Tesla's invention of the alternator a perpetual motion machine, yet we all use AC power today!

The device is a fraud and the claims are fraudulent

Prety good fraud. It was granted US and German patents.
Not cost effective? Aluminum wire purchased at your local welding supply will release more power dollar for dollar than gasoline.

Look, I'm not saying this is a practical device. This is just one example of hydrogen generation that refutes the "impossible" dogma.

The whole point of this debate is to get people thinking. I remember the Arab oil embargo. I, and many others, would have happily shelled out our money for an alternative to gasoline. Price was not a factor, availability was. We do not need to depend solely on fossil fuels.

I was joking about the free energy device, but could easily demonstrate your misinterpretation of the law on that one too.

Come on Doc, science is fun and without crackpots like me you eggheads would die of boredom, or bore the rest of us to death!

[from occupied ga]

You decide what is and what is not worth debating?

Not me, physics and reality. I'm just better a lot better than you at seeing the difference between science and science fiction. The fact that you persist in ignoring reality shows that you don't want to learn either. Your position reminds me of arguing with gun control types. Their minds are closed and fact, logic and reason don't enter in to it.

It was granted US and German patents.

Patent means nothing; there are scads of patents for perpetual motion machines.

Not cost effective?

Absolutely right - (assuming the thing works by swapping the O in water to Al and making h2 and al2o3 and isn't a giant fraud to start with) it is not nor could it ever possibly be cost effective. It costs far more energy to produce aluminum than you could ever get back from using aluminum to generate H2 from water.

The whole point of this debate is to get people thinking

Yep - thinking is what eliminates H2 as a practical motor fuel.

. I, and many others, would have happily shelled out our money for an alternative to gasoline. Price was not a factor, availability was.

This kills your whole argument here. No such devices were available because they don't work. I remember the scams of the 50's and 60' where people claimed to have invented a pill that if you dropped it into a tank of water you could run your car on it. This is the same thing just fancied up to rope in the credulous. But like I said, don't take my word for it. Buy Make one and run your car on it. When I see it working then I'll believe it.

science is fun

Actually I found it to be boring. Which is why I no longer do scientific research plus what I do pays a lot better too.

I tired of wasting my time on this. Your choice, you can believe reality or fantasy. I really don't give a rat's ass, but you might consider that there are things where everyone's opinion is of equal weight. Whether to buy an m-16 or an ak, what color to paint the kitchen, is George Bush a liberal in disguise, etc. Then there are those things that are real and it doesn't matter what someone's opinion is: eggs dropped fall down not up, H2 is not a cost effective motor fuel, throwing yourself on a grenade will get you killed, etc. Those who choose to debate the latter category are generally categorized as bores to be avoided (or worse).

Go off and believe what you want, just don't be surprised when the egg falls down and not up.

[radioman]

Got Ya!!!

Again you retreat to your misinterpretation of the laws of physics to refute me. Now, the patent office is stupid. There are no modern patents for perpetual motion machines. The patent office requires a working model of any device before a patent is granted. It has been this way for all of the twentieth century.

Lets move on to something a little easier to understand. Are you familiar with Benjamin Franklin? He invented an electrostatic motor in the 18th century. Build one. It's an easy and fun build. Connect one side of the motor to ground. Connect the other side of the motor to an antenna. The motor runs. Is that not free energy?

Need another example? Take two rolls of aluminum foil and separate them with one roll of wax paper. Roll it all up and place it in a five gallon plastic bucket. Fill with mineral oil for insulation. Place the lid on the bucket with a wire from each roll of foil protruding. Grab one wire with your left hand and the other with your right hand. Don't wait too long. The capacitor will build a fatal charge if you let it sit. Is this not free energy?

Your call.

[nightdriver]

"So why doesn't Bush take genuine action toward this end today via meaningful increases in fuel-efficiency standards, and leave futurism to the futurists?"

Ans: Because the laws of thermodynamics are not modifiable by politicians. Sorry.

[from occupied ga]

Go bore somebody else or join the flat earth society - they all think like you do too. Your lack of understanding of why stuff works and why it doesn't is too ingrained to remedy here.

[from occupied ga]

Just in case you want to learn something - read this http://www.kilty.com/pmotion.htm#Section2

[radioman]

Interesting page, I have no problem at all with the debunking of perpetual motion. The great skeptic, Eric Krieg, did a much better and up to date job of debunking than this. I wish he would put his page back up.

I'm not talking perpetual motion, and you know that. I'm talking about the difference between practical mechanics and theoretical physics.

I gave you two excellant examples of free energy. You chose to ignore those and respond with a perpetual motion page.

Now, if I were a physicist instead of a mechanic I would easily explain to you why the examples I used are not truly "free energy".

The fact of the matter is that both of those examples work exactly as stated. Anyone can build either of those and see that they work.

As a scientist you can say that both of those examples will consume material over time. As a mechanic I can say if I ain't payin' for it, it's free!

Since I retired I have devoted my shop to crackpot science. I love it. I have built dozens of perpetual motion and free energy machines. It is great fun to have friends mesmerized by the workings of a device that seems to defy logic.

I experimented with hydrogen generation in the 1970's and lost interest. I see nothing today that excites me enough to get back into it.
But, I still believe it can be accomplished. I don't think we'll see the public driving around on water, but I firmly believe hydrogen service stations will be everywhere within twenty years.

I use hydrogen as a welding gas. You can purchase a hydrogen generator through your local welding supply company. It is much cheaper to generate your own hydrogen than it is to buy acetyline. If these generators were built on a commercial scale, I have no doubt they would quickly outperform crude oil refineries.

Anyway, that's this old man's opinion.